*302 Greig and Others v Insole and Others 1977 G. No. 22461977 J ...

*302 Greig and Others v Insole and Others 1977 G. No. 22461977 J ... *302 Greig and Others v Insole and Others 1977 G. No. 22461977 J ...

sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu
from sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu More from this publisher
28.06.2014 Views

[1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 26 [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 [1978] 3 All E.R. 449 (1978) 122 S.J. 162 [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 [1978] 3 All E.R. 449 (1978) 122 S.J. 162 (Cite as: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302) “Finally, it was resolved that the conference strongly recommended that each member country pursue as soon as possible at first class level and in other domestic cricket activities the implementation of decisions made in regard to Test Matches.” The reservations of the West Indies delegates which had been strongly expressed at this ICC meeting of July 26 were not in any way reflected in this press statement. 1977(1) XI Events subsequent to July 26, The application by the plaintiffs for interlocutory relief The recommendation of the ICC made on July 26 that each member country should pursue the implementation of the ICC's policy in regard to Test Matches made it more or less inevitable that the TCCB would introduce a ban at county level, affecting World Series Cricket players, at its meeting due to be held on August 5. It had already agreed in *330 principle on such a ban at its meeting of July 15 and had obtained the requisite authority of the Cricket Council on July 19. In the light of what the ICC had already done and what it was anticipated the TCCB would do when it met on August 5, the respective plaintiffs on August 3 issued their writs in the two actions. Originally the defendants to both actions were named as the MCC and all other members of the TCCB and the members of the Australian Cricket Board sued on their behalf and on behalf of all the other members of the ICC. Immediately after the issue of the writs, the plaintiffs applied to Slynn J. ex parte for interlocutory injunctions restraining the TCCB from taking any decision at the meeting which it was due to hold on August 5, which might be made or calculated to induce players who had contracted to play cricket for World Series Cricket to break their contracts. At the hearing, however, undertakings were given to the court on behalf of the TCCB to the effect that any decision which was taken concerning the banning of players from county cricket would be expressed to be subject to the decision of the court in the present proceedings and would not in any event be implemented until April 1978. On this basis Slynn J. ordered a speedy trial of the actions but granted no further interlocutory relief against the TCCB. During the course of the hearing, the plaintiffs' advisers were given the names of two individual representative defendants on behalf of the TCCB and two other individual representative defendants on behalf of the ICC. This in due course led to an amendment of the writs so as to delete the reference to the MCC and the Australian Cricket Board and to show the names of Mr. Insole and Mr. Carr as sued on behalf of all members of the TCCB and the names of Mr. Webster and Mr. Bailey as sued on behalf of all members of the ICC.(2) The plaintiffs' solicitors' letter to the defendants' solicitors dated August 4, 1977, and Mr. Packer's letters to players of the same date. During the course of the hearing before Slynn J., the defendants' counsel made certain criticisms of the contracts entered into by players with World Series Cricket (which the defendants had not previously seen) and suggested that they might conflict with the playing of English county cricket during the domestic season. On August 4, the plaintiffs' solicitors wrote to the defendants' solicitors referring to this criticism and suggestion, saying: “… This suggestion was made despite the fact that it was made unequivocally clear that this was not the intention of the agreement, and that it was well known that the tours arranged by our clients would not begin until the autumn and would terminate before the English domestic season. As stated in our evidence, our clients had fully explained this position to any players who had inquired. In view of the suggestions which were made, however, our clients are writing a letter to the players in the terms of the © 2011 Thomson Reuters.

[1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 27 [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 [1978] 3 All E.R. 449 (1978) 122 S.J. 162 [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 [1978] 3 All E.R. 449 (1978) 122 S.J. 162 (Cite as: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302) enclosed draft. Our clients are conscious that no individual county has yet, so far as we know, made the suggestions which were put forward on behalf of your clients, and we would not like them to attend the meeting under any false impression that the players would in any way be restricted or prevented from participating to the full in their county programmes ….” On or about the same day, August 4, Mr. Packer wrote a letter to each of the players contracted to World Series Cricket informing them in effect *331 to the full in any English county programmes with which they might be involved. The letter added that no matter what happened in the action, World Series Cricket would honour the contract and expect the player to do the same. A copy of this letter was sent to the TCCB so as to arrive before its meeting about to be held on August 5. (3) The TCCB meeting of August 5 In due course at this meeting, the members of the TCCB passed a number of resolutions, providing for amendment to the TCCB's rules governing the qualification and registration of cricketers in Test and competitive county cricket. They decided, however, that the proposed amendments should be considered by leading counsel. Counsel in due course considered these. Having received his advice, the TCCB on or about August 9, issued the following press release which represented its final decision: “At the meeting of the board on August 5, 1977, consideration was given (a) to the recommendation of the [ICC] made on July 26, 1977, that each member country should pursue as soon as possible at first class level, and in other domestic cricket activities, the implementation of the decision made at Test Match level, and (b) generally to the situation which gave rise to the ICC recommendation. The members of the board agreed upon the undermentioned draft amendments to the rules governing the qualification and registration of cricketers in Test and competitive county cricket, which have been discussed with the board's legal advisers. These draft amendments are subject to the ruling of the High Court at the speedy trial ordered by Slynn J. on August 4, 1977. It must therefore be emphasised that there is no question of the draft amendments being incorporated into the rules or in any manner implemented until after this trial. “1.Rule 1 Qualifications for England “An additional sub-rule (e) be added ‘and (e) that the cricketer is not precluded from playing in a Test Match by reason of the terms of sub-rule (f) of Appendix 1 of the rules of the [ICC] which sub-rule reads as follows: (f) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, no player who after October 1, 1977, has played or made himself available to play in a match previously disapproved by the conference shall thereafter be eligible to play any Test Match without the express consent of the conference to be given only on the application of the governing body for cricket of the country for which, but for this sub-rule, the player would be eligible to play.’ “2.Rule 2 Playing and registering cricketers “The existing rule 2 (c) be deleted and the following new rule 2 (c) be substituted: ‘2 (c) Subject to the overriding discretion of the board, no county shall be entitled to play in any competitive county cricket match: (i) Any cricketer who is and remains precluded from playing in a Test Match on the grounds set out in rule 1 (e) (whether or not he is otherwise qualified to play in a Test Match) prior to the expiration of a period of two years immediately following the date of the last day of the last match previously disapproved by the [ICC] in which he has played or made himself available to play; (ii) More than two cricketers who are not qualified to play for England by reason of their inability to satisfy rule 1 (a) (b) (c) or (d).’*332 “3.At the end of existing rule (2) (a) the following words be added ‘and except in exceptional circum- © 2011 Thomson Reuters.

[1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 Page 27<br />

[1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 [1978] 3 All E.R. 449 (1978) 122 S.J. 162 [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 [1978] 3 All E.R. 449 (1978)<br />

122 S.J. 162<br />

(Cite as: [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302)<br />

enclosed draft. Our clients are conscious that no individual<br />

county has yet, so far as we know, made<br />

the suggestions which were put forward on behalf<br />

of your clients, <strong>and</strong> we would not like them to attend<br />

the meeting under any false impression that<br />

the players would in any way be restricted or prevented<br />

from participating to the full in their county<br />

programmes ….”<br />

On or about the same day, August 4, Mr.<br />

Packer wrote a letter to each of the players contracted<br />

to World Series Cricket informing them in effect<br />

*331 to the full in any English<br />

county programmes with which they might be<br />

involved. The letter added that no matter what<br />

happened in the action, World Series Cricket would<br />

honour the contract <strong>and</strong> expect the player to do the<br />

same. A copy of this letter was sent to the TCCB so<br />

as to arrive before its meeting about to be held on<br />

August 5. (3)<br />

The TCCB meeting of August 5<br />

In due course at this meeting, the members<br />

of the TCCB passed a number of resolutions,<br />

providing for amendment to the TCCB's rules governing<br />

the qualification <strong>and</strong> registration of cricketers<br />

in Test <strong>and</strong> competitive county cricket. They<br />

decided, however, that the proposed amendments<br />

should be considered by leading counsel. Counsel<br />

in due course considered these. Having received his<br />

advice, the TCCB on or about August 9, issued the<br />

following press release which represented its final<br />

decision:<br />

“At the meeting of the board on August 5, <strong>1977</strong>,<br />

consideration was given (a) to the recommendation<br />

of the [ICC] made on July 26, <strong>1977</strong>, that each member<br />

country should pursue as soon as possible at<br />

first class level, <strong>and</strong> in other domestic cricket activities,<br />

the implementation of the decision made at<br />

Test Match level, <strong>and</strong> (b) generally to the situation<br />

which gave rise to the ICC recommendation. The<br />

members of the board agreed upon the undermentioned<br />

draft amendments to the rules governing the<br />

qualification <strong>and</strong> registration of cricketers in Test<br />

<strong>and</strong> competitive county cricket, which have been<br />

discussed with the board's legal advisers. These<br />

draft amendments are subject to the ruling of the<br />

High Court at the speedy trial ordered by Slynn J.<br />

on August 4, <strong>1977</strong>. It must therefore be emphasised<br />

that there is no question of the draft amendments<br />

being incorporated into the rules or in any manner<br />

implemented until after this trial.<br />

“1.Rule 1 Qualifications for Engl<strong>and</strong><br />

“An additional sub-rule (e) be added ‘<strong>and</strong> (e) that<br />

the cricketer is not precluded from playing in a Test<br />

Match by reason of the terms of sub-rule (f) of Appendix<br />

1 of the rules of the [ICC] which sub-rule<br />

reads as follows: (f) <strong>No</strong>twithst<strong>and</strong>ing anything<br />

hereinbefore contained, no player who after October<br />

1, <strong>1977</strong>, has played or made himself available<br />

to play in a match previously disapproved by the<br />

conference shall thereafter be eligible to play any<br />

Test Match without the express consent of the conference<br />

to be given only on the application of the<br />

governing body for cricket of the country for<br />

which, but for this sub-rule, the player would be<br />

eligible to play.’<br />

“2.Rule 2 Playing <strong>and</strong> registering cricketers<br />

“The existing rule 2 (c) be deleted <strong>and</strong> the following<br />

new rule 2 (c) be substituted: ‘2 (c) Subject to<br />

the overriding discretion of the board, no county<br />

shall be entitled to play in any competitive county<br />

cricket match: (i) Any cricketer who is <strong>and</strong> remains<br />

precluded from playing in a Test Match on the<br />

grounds set out in rule 1 (e) (whether or not he is<br />

otherwise qualified to play in a Test Match) prior to<br />

the expiration of a period of two years immediately<br />

following the date of the last day of the last match<br />

previously disapproved by the [ICC] in which he<br />

has played or made himself available to play; (ii)<br />

More than two cricketers who are not qualified to<br />

play for Engl<strong>and</strong> by reason of their inability to satisfy<br />

rule 1 (a) (b) (c) or (d).’*332<br />

“3.At the end of existing rule (2) (a) the following<br />

words be added ‘<strong>and</strong> except in exceptional circum-<br />

© 2011 Thomson Reuters.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!